Remember to register transliterations as well as English versions of your trademarks in China and elsewhere. NBA legend Michael Jordan initiated a suit in China alleging the unauthorized use of his name by a Chinese sportswear and footwear manufacturer. Michael Jordan became a worldwide basketball star in the 1980s and 1990s. Qiaodan Sports Company Ltd., changed its name to "Qiaodon", the transliteration of "Jordan", in 2000. Not only does Qiaodon use the name Jordan, it often has used Michael Jordan’s iconic number 23 and a logo which greatly resembles Nike’s “Jumpman” logo (which Nike uses on Michael Jordan related products) on its products and advertisements.

Nike registered the trademark "Jordan" (in English) in China in 1993 but failed to register the Chinese version allowing Qiaodon to register the Chinese version in 1998. Jordan appears to have acted after all of these years because other NBA players (such as Yao Ming) have had recent victories under similar circumstances. Things appear to be looking brighter on the intellectual property front in China. However, you should still take Michael Jordan’s situation as a lesson/reminder to register transliterations as well as English versions of your trademarks in China and elsewhere.…

The National Nanomanufacuring Network (NNN) at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst just published its October newsletter which you can find here. There is a nice article by Barbara Beck and Chris Long from Gradient regarding the recent Song nanoparticle study from China which was my first contributing editor piece for NNN’s InterNano. Please read the newsletter and follow NNN’s valuable work.…

A recent study published in the well-known medical journal, the European Respiratory Journal, has been receiving significant publicity as the authors have claimed their findings support an apparent linkage between workplace exposures to nanoparticles and severe respiratory disease. Specifically, in this study, investigators at China’s Capital University of Medical Science related unusual and progressive lung disease in seven Chinese workers, two of whom died, to nanoparticle exposures in a print plant where a polyacrylic ester paste containing nanoparticles was used. This linkage was made by the study investigators despite a general lack of exposure data for the workers.

Earlier today, the Guardian printed a letter from the Soil Association criticizing the paper’s nanotechnology supplement appearing last Thursday. The letter cites the Song study from China as more evidence supporting its call for a moratorium on nanoscale materials along with "nano-free" standards, which we have previously covered. Key statements from the letter follow:

"Seven women working in a factory [in China] where nanoparticles were used in paint fell ill with serious lung disease and two died. Researchers . . . found nanoparticles deep in the lungs of the women . . . A chemical in the paint, the patients’ lung tissue and the liquid surrounding the lungs were all found to contain nanoparticles."

"There should be an immediate freeze on the commercial release of nanomaterials until there is a sound body of scientific research into all the health impacts."

The letter does not attempt to explain any of the severe criticism the Song article has received by most main stream scientists, and is a good example of bad science put to a questionable use.…

The last decade has seen the rise of the People’s Republic of China as a major economic, industrial and military power. According to a recent article in the UK’s Guardian, it might soon become a major power in nanotechnology and nanoindustry. The article by Tom Mackenzie may be found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/26/nanotechnology-china .…

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP offers this blog for general informational purposes only. The content of this blog is not intended as legal advice for any purpose, and you should not consider it as such advice or as a legal opinion on any matters. The information provided herein is subject to change without notice, and you may not rely upon any such information with regard to a particular matter or set of facts. Further, the use of the blog does not create, and is not intended to create, any attorney-client relationship between you and Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP or any individual lawyer in the firm. No such relationship will be considered to have been formed until we have had an opportunity to resolve any conflict of interest issues and have advised you, in writing, of the nature and scope of the legal services to be provided. Unless we establish an attorney-client relationship with you with regard to the particular matter, we will not treat any information that you may send to us, or submit as a comment to a blog article or entry, as confidential or privileged, and any unsolicited communications may be disclosed to other persons without regard to confidentiality considerations. Use of the blog is at your own risk, and the site is provided without warranty of any kind. We make no warranties of any kind regarding the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog, and we make no representations regarding whether such information is reliable, up-to-date, or applicable to any particular situation. Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP expressly disclaims all liability for actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this blog, or for any damages resulting from your viewing and use of this blog.